Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10021 to 10040 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held the appeal not maintainable and dismissed it; the appellant's challenge to confiscation of undeclared foreign-origin gold seized from personal baggage during arrival was unsuited to this Tribunal because the matter involves baggage seizure arising from alleged smuggling and concealment without declaration under the Customs Act. The Tribunal found an alternative remedial route exists and that an appeal from the Commissioner (Appeals) order in a baggage seizure case could not be entertained before CESTAT. Consequently the impugned appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the appellant is directed to pursue any available remedy before the appropriate forum, if such remedy remains open.
CESTAT held the appeal not maintainable and dismissed it; the appellant's challenge to confiscation of undeclared foreign-origin gold seized from personal baggage during arrival was unsuited to this Tribunal because the matter involves baggage seizure arising from alleged smuggling and concealment without declaration under the Customs Act. The Tribunal found an alternative remedial route exists and that an appeal from the Commissioner (Appeals) order in a baggage seizure case could not be entertained before CESTAT. Consequently the impugned appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the appellant is directed to pursue any available remedy before the appropriate forum, if such remedy remains open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.